In article .com,
alex_t wrote:
Ah, the Jubilee - there is nothing better then constant announcements
that "This train terminates at Stratford" when ALL trains terminate at
Stratford.

They don't all teminate at Straford; some of them terminate at
Stanmore, so the announcments are useful to infrequent travelers
who might like to be reassured that they got on a train going the
right way.

Even if you pretend that noone could make a mistake like that, some
trains eastbound will be terminated at West Ham or other locations if
they are turned short.

Sometimes, if one finds oneself on a train that isn't going all the
way, the choice of station to wait for the next train can make a
difference to the ease of the interchange, particularly for those
with heavy luggage - for example, if an Eastbound trains is turned
short at North Greenwich, you are probably better waiting at Canary
Wharf for the next train to Stratford as that'll avoid 2 flights
of stairs at Greenwich.

--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash

In article ,
Ernst S Blofeld wrote:
The classic is the "... line has been part suspended due to a *customer*
under a train ...". It is good to see the customer relationship being
valued even in such trying circumstances.

At the point they're under the train, they're not going to go very far
on LuL services, so calling them a passenger is a bit much. And while I
might prefer "selfish idiot", it seems a bit unfair to label folk
thus when most of them are ill, and the remainder careless.


--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash

Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
Ernst S Blofeld wrote:
The classic is the "... line has been part suspended due to a *customer*
under a train ...". It is good to see the customer relationship being
valued even in such trying circumstances.

At the point they're under the train, they're not going to go very far
on LuL services, so calling them a passenger is a bit much. And while I
might prefer "selfish idiot", it seems a bit unfair to label folk
thus when most of them are ill, and the remainder careless.

You've missed the point. Calling them a *passenger* is equally as
ridiculous. It is the fact there is a *person* under a train that is the
problem - their status or relationship with TfL is irrelevant to the
disruption.

ESB

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:40:14 +0100, Paul Corfield wrote:

Anyway, the point is that many other mass transit systems do not
announce the destination if the destination is the end of the line and
most trains usually go there. The announcements only made when the
destination is unusual. LUL for some reason uses more railway-like
announcements, which is understandable on some lines, but rather
strange on others.

Many lines on other networks are end to end and have no overlapping
service patterns or branches. London has those in abundance and
therefore information has to be provided. Certain other networks do make
announcements about destinations, interchanges and safety announcements
- Hong Kong MTR makes them in three languages for every stop including
telling you what side the platform will be on at the next stop.

Actually, that's a good example of only making the announcement in the
case of something unusual. The MTR uses left-hand running with mostly
island platforms, so most platforms are on the right-hand side of the
train. If the next station has its platform on the left side, the
announcement is made that "doors will open on the left". If its
platform is on the right side, *no* announcement about this is made.

I think people are forgetting that the security situation and assessment
of risk to the tube network means that certain things *have* to be said.
You only need to look at the impact of security alerts on the service
just because people have left bags, boxes and other items lying around.
The fact people leave them behind warrants a reminder!

But it surely only works if the reminder takes place just as they are
leaving their belongings behind.

Is there any empirical evidence that these announcements actually make
a difference?

"alex_t" wrote in message
oups.com...

And don't tell me that you think that all those excessive "security"
or "important" announcements are actually needed.

TRANSEC - Transport Secuity Agency do. There is a minimum requirement from
them to play security announcements every 10 minutes. If service information
changes shortly after one being played, you will invariably hear another
security announcement before the 10 minute standard as even the most modern
PA systems provided do not allow you to change one message whilst the system
is running with others. You have to stop all messages, insert your new
recording then queue them all up to play again.

On 11 Jul, 12:36, Mike Bristow wrote:
might prefer "selfish idiot", it seems a bit unfair to label folk
thus when most of them are ill, and the remainder careless.

Not always , some people have been pushed. Usually by some nutter who
hasn't taken their medication because it stops them hearing the
pixies.

B2003

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Paul Corfield wrote:

I think people are forgetting that the security situation and assessment
of risk to the tube network means that certain things *have* to be said.
You only need to look at the impact of security alerts on the service
just because people have left bags, boxes and other items lying around.
The fact people leave them behind warrants a reminder!

If *and only if* those announcements are actually effective. The whole
point of the whinge is that because people hear them every five minutes
every day, they tune them out, and they have no effect. If this is true,
the announcements are a Bad Thing; if not, they're a Good Thing. Until
someone points us to a study which actually determines this, we're all
****ing in the wind.

I'm sure I will now get lambasted for "defending" what everyone seems to
hate.

Yep!

tom

--
Come on thunder; come on thunder.

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Paul Corfield wrote:

I think people are forgetting that the security situation and
assessment of risk to the tube network means that certain things
*have* to be said. You only need to look at the impact of security
alerts on the service just because people have left bags, boxes and
other items lying around. The fact people leave them behind warrants a
reminder!

If *and only if* those announcements are actually effective. The whole
point of the whinge is that because people hear them every five minutes
every day, they tune them out, and they have no effect. If this is true,
the announcements are a Bad Thing; if not, they're a Good Thing. Until
someone points us to a study which actually determines this, we're all
****ing in the wind.

Don't know if there have been any specific studies about those
announcements. But it has long been axiomatic in human factor research
that too many warnings causes people to start ignoring the warnings.

You could repeat the notice "This is a security announcement: Please do
not leave personal belongings unattended" every few minutes. If it is
ignored you are no worse off than not making the announcement from the
point of view of leaving bags unattended. But when you have a really
important security announcement, lots of people will ignore it.

I know that at my local station when I hear "this is a special
announcement" it means just the opposite and I can safely tune out.
--
Michael Hoffman

Recently I was a witness of evacuation from Stratford station (because
of "customer under a train"). About half of the people did not
evacuate until they were told that by station staff - they totally
ignored the announcements. Of course it was usual Stratford crowd, so
you can argue that they just did not understand the announcement as it
wasn't in Polish :-)

alex_t wrote:
Recently I was a witness of evacuation from Stratford station (because
of "customer under a train"). About half of the people did not
evacuate until they were told that by station staff - they totally
ignored the announcements.

If the station staff were in the habit of yelling "please do not leave
your bags unattended" every 10 minutes they probably would have been
ignored too.
--
Michael Hoffman